Rumsfeld is out

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by john9001
i hope Gates is good at retreating, ...er ..i mean withdrawing.

LOL dont kid yourself.

The most far left Bush hating liberal in the world could be crowned king tomorrow and those troops still would not be going anywhere any time soon.

I keep hearing people say, and politicians spew rhetoric say how we need to bring the troops home.
But thats all it is. Is rhetoric.
I've yet to hear anyone say how they were planning on accomplishing this.

Those troops are gonna be there for a while no matter who controls what or who is elected into office.
Might as well get used to that thought now

[Rolex]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK

I keep hearing people say, and politicians spew rhetoric say how we need to bring the troops home.
But thats all it is. Is rhetoric.
I've yet to hear anyone say how they were planning on accomplishing this.

On airplanes and ships?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by kamilyun
If this is the case, I am truly scared.  I did not understand that policy was set by one man and carried out by "yes-men".  But then again, he did feel called by God to the presidency.  So maybe he does have help in setting policy.

 

Fair enough.  Either in underestimating or in dealing with it.

And let me say, in all fairness, the Afghan conflict was nearly perfectly executed.  We had international support.  We made proper use of local forces.  We did however fail to catch OBL, but otherwise were successful.  Bush deserves maximum credit for getting Rumsfeld to enact his policy here.

We should have finished this job 100% before starting on a new task.  Probably should have moved Afghanistan--->Iran--->Iraq--->Syria instead of jumping straight to Iraq.

This is not conventional war. People need to understand that. This is assymetrical war, you go where the fight takes you. You do not get to "finish here and THEN go there" anymore now than we did in World War II, where we DID NOT finish one and then go to another. That's just not how war works, especially not this sort of war. You evaluate threats, prioritize, and act accordingly. Saddam Hussien's Iraq happened at the time to be more actively supporting terrorism than Iran, North Korea or Syria. Oh, and if you ask the right people in the military, they'll tell you they are killing the terrorists from Syria, Jordan, and Iran as they enter Iraq. Not all of them, but a large number of them.

None of the theaters of operations will be closed out soon. We're not dealing with countries, uniformed armies, and legal combatants, and this is not a conventional war. I suggest you look for Boyd's theories on assymetrical warfare, and take a look at that. It will be stated with regards to dealing mostly with a uniformed enemy, but you can apply it to terrorism and the countries that support it.

[kamilyun]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
This is not conventional war. People need to understand that. This is assymetrical war, you go where the fight takes you.

I am perfectly aware that this is not a conventional war:  It is 1/2 supressing rebellion and fighting terrorist and 1/2 preventing civil war...exactly what we planned on.

Asymmetric war is nothing new.  It is just a new term for a way of fighting which maximizes your strengths while exploiting your enemy's weaknesses...including numbers of men (and women), technology available and position (sea and land).  It does require any theories to explain, as I'm pretty much sure it is common sense.

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
None of the theaters of operations will be closed out soon.  

You and I both recognize this.  I absolutely do not believe the war will be over anytime soon.  However, ex-Sec Rumsfeld did:

"...it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

From the US Department of Defense transcripts.  Another liberal media source.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by kamilyun
You and I both recognize this.  I absolutely do not believe the war will be over anytime soon.  However, ex-Sec Rumsfeld did:

"...it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

From the US Department of Defense transcripts.  Another liberal media source.

First, put the quote in full context.

Second, what is with your constant need to add "another liberal media source" to everything you post? The first thing that does is give me the impression you're a pompous jack-ass. If you feel the need to add that to everything you post, then I feel the need to avoid wasting further time and effort on replying to you.

[midnight Target]

Did he do a good job?

No.

Should Bush have dumped him sooner?

Absolutely.

Will I miss his self questioning press confrences?

You bet.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL dont kid yourself.

The most far left Bush hating liberal in the world could be crowned king tomorrow and those troops still would not be going anywhere any time soon.

I keep hearing people say, and politicians spew rhetoric say how we need to bring the troops home.
But thats all it is. Is rhetoric.
I've yet to hear anyone say how they were planning on accomplishing this.

Those troops are gonna be there for a while no matter who controls what or who is elected into office.
Might as well get used to that thought now

It's easier done than you realize. All Congress need do is to cut off funding. The president may be the commander and chief, but the legislative controls the purse.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's easier done than you realize. All Congress need do is to cut off funding. The president may be the commander and chief, but the legislative controls the purse.

EXACTLY what happened in Vietnam. They weren't even satisfied with troop withdrawals, they cut off funding to support our allies even after we quit sending troops. Don't think it won't happen again.

[lasersailor184]

Sandy, I clicked on the pirate party.  I was expecting real pirates.  

Yet I find computer nerds who are for pirating software.  How lame.

[Sandman]

Opinions are like *******s.

We do not support nor condone any unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.

[Squire]

Is it just me, or is everybody else beyond tired of the term "assymetrical warfare" like its some kind of new invention?

Its nothing more than any "indirect" tactic or strategy against an enemy, and its been around since men were fighting with animal bones and rocks.

Lets give it a rest. War is war, and your enemy will ALWAYS look for a way to hurt you by any means possible, be they a state, or non-state group, army, terrorist, insurgent et al.

Next somebody will be announcing a new kind of warfare, where these circular things called "wheels" are being employed as "force multipliers".

[kamilyun]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
First, put the quote in full context.

Second, what is with your constant need to add "another liberal media source" to everything you post? The first thing that does is give me the impression you're a pompous jack-ass. If you feel the need to add that to everything you post, then I feel the need to avoid wasting further time and effort on replying to you.

I'm sorry that I sound like a pompous jack-ass.  I do, however, find a bit of humor in that usual label applied to media critiques of the president.  It seems to be a dogmatic, knee-jerk response to anything that doesn't laud the president with praise.  I admit, that you have not used that line with me yet, so I apologize that you felt I was directing it towards you.  As I mentioned above in a previous post, none of my discussion/questions are meant to be smartarse or personal.

That said, I think a few of your remarks "people need to understand that", "Oh, and if you ask the right military people" or "I suggest you look at..." implied that there was something that I, or the American public, did not get that you did.  I am fully aware of the gravity of the situation, the commitment required and the tactics involved on both sides.

I too, feel the need to avoid further replies because we both seem to be set in our opinions of the current situation.

And the quote was in response to a serviceman's question of how long the unit would have to be deployed.  Rumsfeld further elaborated on the term of the war which is that snippit of the quote.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

There IS plenty that the general public doesn't get about Iraq. Mostly, they get NONE of the success stories. The mainstream media doesn't tell you about ANY of it.

They tell you in a little snippet about a Navy Seal getting killed. They DON'T tell you that the same group of Navy Seals has killed hundreds of insurgents, destroyed dozens of weapons caches, or protected several Iraqi officials working on getting Iraq under control. NONE of that gets through to the general public. You ONLY hear that if you know people in the military (a Seal I know on Team Deka brought me a video they produced in Afghanistan because the media NEVER ONCE reported on ANY of their successes), or make an effort to look for it.

They'll tell you a helicopter crashed or might have been shot down. They WON'T tell you that special operatinos groups have been killing terrorists and insurgents coming in from Iran, Syria, and Jordan by the GROSS. They won't tell you about the roads littered with burned out vehicles and dead bodies of the outsiders coming in to cause trouble.

They show you a video that the insurgents gave them that shows an insurgent sniper killing a soldier. But they won't show you the videos of military snipers killing insurgents.

Hell, they'll even publish the lies of supposed soldiers who are at best lying about what they did do in Iraq, and at worst didn't even go to Iraq. But they sure as Hell won't publish anything from those who go back for tour after tour, and reup because they see the progress and believe it can work and can be won.

The thing the general public doesn't get about Iraq is easily quantified. It's called good news and success stories. If you were to have asked a thousand voters at the polls yesterday what good news they'd seen about Iraq, 999 would have said none.

If you think there's nothing that the average citizen of the general public doesn't know about Iraq, you're sadly mistaken.

[JB88]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There IS plenty that the general public doesn't get about Iraq. Mostly, they get NONE of the success stories. The mainstream media doesn't tell you about ANY of it.

They tell you in a little snippet about a Navy Seal getting killed. They DON'T tell you that the same group of Navy Seals has killed hundreds of insurgents, destroyed dozens of weapons caches, or protected several Iraqi officials working on getting Iraq under control. NONE of that gets through to the general public. You ONLY hear that if you know people in the military (a Seal I know on Team Deka brought me a video they produced in Afghanistan because the media NEVER ONCE reported on ANY of their successes), or make an effort to look for it.

They'll tell you a helicopter crashed or might have been shot down. They WON'T tell you that special operatinos groups have been killing terrorists and insurgents coming in from Iran, Syria, and Jordan by the GROSS. They won't tell you about the roads littered with burned out vehicles and dead bodies of the outsiders coming in to cause trouble.

They show you a video that the insurgents gave them that shows an insurgent sniper killing a soldier. But they won't show you the videos of military snipers killing insurgents.

Hell, they'll even publish the lies of supposed soldiers who are at best lying about what they did do in Iraq, and at worst didn't even go to Iraq. But they sure as Hell won't publish anything from those who go back for tour after tour, and reup because they see the progress and believe it can work and can be won.

The thing the general public doesn't get about Iraq is easily quantified. It's called good news and success stories. If you were to have asked a thousand voters at the polls yesterday what good news they'd seen about Iraq, 999 would have said none.

If you think there's nothing that the average citizen of the general public doesn't know about Iraq, you're sadly mistaken.

it's not like the administration has been holding any of these stories in our faces...sure they "say" that we are having successes...but why isnt tony snow highlighting them?  

who has the burden of proof?  is there a reason that bush hasnt been able to sell it?

the perception might be that there arent as many as they want us to believe.

i think that is why.

[Pei]

Originally posted by Squire
Is it just me, or is everybody else beyond tired of the term "assymetrical warfare" like its some kind of new invention?

Its nothing more than any "indirect" tactic or strategy against an enemy, and its been around since men were fighting with animal bones and rocks.

Lets give it a rest. War is war, and your enemy will ALWAYS look for a way to hurt you by any means possible, be they a state, or non-state group, army, terrorist, insurgent et al.

Next somebody will be announcing a new kind of warfare, where these circular things called "wheels" are being employed as "force multipliers".

Can we also dump the term "warfighting" while we are at it?